Don't Fear the Rhetor!

Consider this Quote from Thomas Farrell:

"Rhetoric...is more than the practice; it is the entire process of forming, expressing, and judging public thought in real life" (CRT 96).

This perspective immediately made me focus on Farrell's use of the words "public" and "real life," and whether or not the implication is that rhetoric does not take place within the landscape of one's mind. What I mean in question form is: Does private thought, interior exposition, and the myriad of ways and means that an individual judges and assesses propositions to him or herself constitute rhetorical acts?

If I ask myself 'how do I feel about gay marriage?'--and answer 'well, Steve, certainly the history of America has shown a general progress of giving more people more rights, so yeah...let the gay population have at it.' Then I counter: 'Yes, that may be the case for American History, but world history dictates that marriage has always been between a man and a woman...and thus no-way for same-sex marriage.' Most likely, I would eventually get to the synthesis of being in favor for civil unions and letting the traditionalists keep their sacrosanct word. This faux dialogue within my mind is actually a monologue or a soliloquy...but does it or does it not engage in the same rhetorical flourish that all issues of consequence invariably embrace?

My initial view is that yes...interior decision-making is rhetorical in essence. The processes of thinking seem to have the qualities outlined by Ramage--contingency, persuasion, pathos, logos, and even audience...myself and the implied audience of the world as my 'made decision' will eventually manifest explicitly or implicitly outside myself. I use Platonic, Aristotelian, and even elements of sophist rhetoric to make an informed choice--hopefully the best possible from an assessment of mentally well-articulated propositions. The more contentious aspects of sophistry, if engaged, would constitute mental defect or delusion--relying on racism, bigotry, fear, ignorance, rationalization, apathy, etc. to base an opinion. Contentious sophistry in the mind would cause one to accept errant propositions.

The larger point is: If rhetoric is used to convince others of (presumably) better propositions, then aren't the same techniques used to convince (i.e. decide) things for ourselves?

One last thing. When I broached this subject of mental rhetoric with Dr. Mahoney, he reminded me that what we consider the interior, the private, the personal, is very much composed of what is outer and public. We think in language and concepts and use methods which are to some or all extent not innate, but passed on by influence, environment, and reflection. This makes me believe that alone in the dark of night when we consider things grand or small--that we are in fact engaging in rhetoric.

I no longer fear the rhetor in myself or others. Like most things in this world it seems that it is judicious use that leads to excellence. I guess the important message of this post is to urge people to use rhetoric and not let rhetoric ride roughshod over you.